Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026

Elevate Services, Inc.

Elevate Services, Inc. looks under-valued against its niche peers and is at-risk on financing cadence.

WatchOverdue for a raise versus sector cadence — could be a bridge, a down round, or distress. Watch for the next filing.

Businessfiled

Elevate Services, Inc. operates in Other, based in Phoenix.

Sector still resolves to a broad 'Other' bucket, so operating comparables below are weaker than for a tightly-classified peer.

No verified homepage on file yet — operating evidence is limited to the public record.

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

Elevate Services, Inc. has raised $18M in disclosed capital across 4 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series A (a $4.0M–$15M round).

Largest single filing: $10M on 2019-05-21.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2023-03-11.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Elevate Services, Inc. at approximately $22M (range $4.5M–$65M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.57× the median modeled value of Series A Other companies in 2022–2024 (1135 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 37 months.

Last raise 3.3 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Past due for a raise versus sector cadence — watch for distress or a bridge.

The last round was 3.0× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 84% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 56% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Ness Well, Inc., Quantori, Inc., Qquv Investments 5, Llc, Applause Network TV, Inc., Trustworthy Co.

Peoplefiled

3 named people on file across officers, directors and signatories.

Risks & flagsmixed

Overdue for a raise versus sector norm — distress or bridge risk.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

No clearly named CEO/founder/principal in the surfaced records — key-person evidence is thin.